1

A Review of Intelligence and its Development

 2

A Review of Intelligence and its Development

This paper will discuss intelligence and its development. First, it will explain what

intelligence is. Then, it will discuss the theoretical models of intelligence covered in class. After

which, it will discuss the best developmental period and methods to develop intelligence. It will

end off with the limitations of focusing too much on intelligence with respect to other

developmental aspects.

What Intelligence Is

According to Santrock (2019), intelligence consists of problem solving, learning, and

adaptive abilities, with such abilities varying greatly amongst individuals. It is operationalized as

the g factor and measured using various intelligence quotient (IQ) tests, with the Stanford-Binet

and Wechsler scales being the most well established. IQ is also one of the rare psychometric

constructs with strong correlation to real outcomes. It acts as a powerful predictor of

socioeconomic success (Strenze, 2007), amongst other positive life outcomes, which is why

there is strong general fascination surrounding it.

Evaluation of Models from Class

The three models of intelligence covered in class were the fluid and crystallized

intelligences by Raymond Cattell, the triarchic model by Robert Sternberg, and the multiple

intelligences by Howard Gardner. Of these, only the Cattell model, which suggests general

intelligence to be a combination of fluid and crystallized memory functions, seems to accurately

describe intelligence, with fluid intelligence strongly correlating to the g factor (Kvist &

Gustafsson, 2008). Brain regions associated with fluid intelligence and general intelligence also

seem to overlap greatly (Johnson & Gottesman, 2006). The other models face various issues.

Firstly, the analytical and practical intelligences proposed by Sternberg can be argued to be
 3

different applications of general intelligence, as intelligence tests have been shown to be

correlated to both academic successes and street smarts (Gottfredson, 2003), which are supposed

to be distinct in this model. Creativity also relies greatly on fluid intelligence and other executive

functions (Nusbaum & Silvia, 2011), meaning that creative intelligence should not be considered

a distinct form of intelligence. The Gardner model faces issues as well, and it is shown that the

multiple intelligences all correlate to general intelligence (Visser et al., 2006), meaning that they

too could be different applications of intelligence rather than distinct factors. There are also no

empirical studies backing up the existence of multiple intelligences (Rousseau, 2021).

As such, when trying to understand the cognitive abilities of a child, the Cattell model

may be the best, though considering the g factor instead would be just as effective. The Cattell

model, however, does allow parents to understand why their child may seem gifted in one area

but average in others, which may occur due to low crystallized intelligence rather than low

general intelligence. Regardless, properly understanding the level of cognitive ability a child has

benefits, as it leads parents and educators to have more appropriate expectations for the child,

which will allow for a healthier developmental environment. After all, constraining children of

higher intelligence in environments not sufficiently challenging enough leads to a higher

likelihood for the development of mental health issues (Allodi & Rydelius, 2008), and placing

children with lower intelligence in normal environments would also likely lead to similar issues.

Parents as such should test their children at a reputable psychologist if they suspect that their

child to be either significantly lower or higher in intelligence relative to the mean, and place

them in an appropriate developmental institute. Singapore in this respect is a good place to be,

with a Gifted Education Program catering to children of higher intelligence and 19 special

education schools catering to those with disabilities that lead to lower intelligence.
 4

The Sternberg and Gardner models, while not useful in understanding intelligence, are

not completely irrelevant either. From a functional standpoint, they still have merit, having

encouraged parents and educators to consider more holistic styles of education, which confer

benefits in motor, socio-emotional, and other aspects of cognitive development (Ashokan, 2015).

They also provide self-esteem benefits, and children who do not possess high general

intelligence may see themselves as having ability in other fields, which can act as a buffer

against stressful life situations (Hosogi et al., 2012). However, using them to evaluate the

academic abilities of a child would be detrimental, as they in the end still do not accurately

reflect intelligence.

Intelligence Development

Early childhood is a crucial period of time for parents or educators looking to increase the

intelligence of the children under their care. This period, which occurs roughly from the ages of

18 to 24 months until 5 to 6 years of age, consists of rapid development across multiple

psychological domains, including that of cognition (Piaget, 1981). MRI studies in particular

show that the brain regions associated with intelligence appear to be highly malleable during this

period, meaning that measures to stimulate intelligence may hence be more effective if provided

during this sensitive period (Peng et al., 2017).

One such measure is the training of working memory, which can provide long lasting

improvements in general intelligence (Peng et al., 2014; Peng et al., 2017). Working memory is a

key cognitive process that allows for the short-term storage and the integration of information

(Baddeley, 2003), and appears to use the same underlying neural networks as that of general

intelligence (Jaeggi, 2008). This could explain why it is strongly related to measures of

intelligence (Cochrane et al., 2019), and why the improvement of working memory leads to an
 5

increase in intelligence. The training of working memory can occur through the use of multiple

programs, and these include the Cogmed training, Jungle memory, n-back training, and running

span training methods (Peng et al., 2017), and parents and educators can consider applying these

programs during early childhood. Focus should be placed on methods of properly running these

programs to ensure that children properly engage in training to actually benefit, and this can

come in the form of facilitation and incorporation of training methods into games.

Other measures are more traditional, in that they typically carry general public consensus

of their positive influence on intelligence. Music lessons, for example, have been shown to lead

to increases in intelligence (Kaviani et al., 2014). Learning to read, regardless of the complexity

of material, can also lead to increases in intelligence (Ritchie et al., 2014). Sudoku as well, has

been shown to improve working memory and hence intelligence (Grabbe, 2011). There has even

been an increasing body of literature documenting the influences of abacus training on working

memory and intelligence (Wang, 2020). Parents and educators that are educated on child raising

should already be generally aware of the benefits that such measures have, but the research just

confirms that these measures are genuinely effective and should be used. However, such

measures are not as targeted as the specialized programs mentioned before, and their influence

on intelligence may not be as drastic as those provided by the specialized working memory

training programs, though more research is required to ascertain this.

Limitations of Intelligence

Solely focusing on intelligence may lead to the neglect of other important developmental

areas. One such area is that of motor skill development. As it is, it may be impossible to

implement working memory training programs without the use of new media technology such as

smartphones due to the high volume and frequency of the presentation and testing of information
 6

that occurs. Parents and educators may then be tempted to allow children to spend too much time

on their devices. This leads to significantly lower fine motor skill development, due to the lack of

complex movements needed to operate such devices relative to more traditional forms of play

(Martzog & Suggate, 2022). The excess exposure to these devices may also lead to an increased

risk of astigmatism (Huang et al., 2020), which while not as debilitating as a lack of fine motor

skills, is still detrimental. One way to overcome this is to use more traditional measures, which

while maybe not providing as much benefit to intelligence as mentioned previously, may allow

for more holistic development.

Other areas should also not be neglected. Socioemotional development, for example, is

key to good academic and behavioral outcomes, and should be fostered with a good relationship

between the child and parents or educators (Alzahrani, 2019). Even amongst cognition, non-

intelligence areas, such as patterning skills (Bussing et al., 2010), attention (McClelland, 2013),

and other executive functions that form the base of more complex operations are also required

for later success in various aspects of life.

A more specific example of this is given in the week 10 lecture, which states that

achievement in school is only 25% attributable to intelligence, with the other 75% from

engagement. The measures used to increase intelligence, however, do not increase engagement,

which can instead be addressed with better schooling environments that cater to a better stage-

environment fit. This is likely best carried out through systematic changes in curriculum, though

implementation of such would take time and effort. Beyond stage-environment fit, the beliefs

that children hold regarding school are also key to achievement. The conception of ability, for

example, shows that children who believe in the incremental theory. which states that ability is

fluid and can be increased with effort, will perform better on difficult tasks after failing. Children
 7

who believe in mastery goals rather than performance goals as well will have better long-term

achievements, as they will continue to try to put in effort and improve themselves even after

failing.

Conclusion

All in all, understanding intelligence is important to success, and understanding it better

can occur through Cattell’s model. Measures to increase intelligence are best during the early

childhood period, and parents and educators should take note of the specific programs available,

while not neglecting other developmental areas for a holistic approach.

Word Count: 1,600

 8

References

Allodi, Mara & Rydelius, Per-Anders. (2008). The needs of gifted children in context: a study of

Swedish teachers’ knowledge and attitudes.

Alzahrani, M., Alharbi, M., & Alodwani, A. (2019). The effect of social-emotional competence

on children academic achievement and Behavioral Development. International

Education Studies, 12(12), 141. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v12n12p141

Ashokan, Varun. (2015). Holistic Approach for Early Childhood Education.

Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews

Neuroscience, 4(10), 829–839. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1201

Bussing, R., Mason, D. M., Bell, L., Porter, P., & Garvan, C. (2010). Adolescent outcomes of

childhood attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in a diverse community sample.

Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 49(6), 595–605.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2010.03.006

Cochrane, A., Simmering, V., & Green, C. S. (2019). Fluid intelligence is related to capacity in

memory as well as attention: Evidence from middle childhood and adulthood. PLOS

ONE, 14(8). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221353

Gottfredson, L. S. (2003). Dissecting practical intelligence theory. Intelligence, 31(4), 343–397.

https://doi.org/10.1016/s0160-2896(02)00085-5

Grabbe, J. W. (2011). Sudoku and working memory performance for older adults. Activities,

Adaptation & Aging, 35(3), 241–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/01924788.2011.596748

 9

Hosogi, M., Okada, A., Fujii, C., Noguchi, K., & Watanabe, K. (2012). Importance and

usefulness of evaluating self-esteem in children. BioPsychoSocial Medicine, 6(1), 9.

https://doi.org/10.1186/1751-0759-6-9

Huang, L., Yang, G.-Y., Schmid, K. L., Chen, J.-Y., Li, C.-G., He, G.-H., Ruan, Z.-L., & Chen,

W.-Q. (2020). Screen exposure during early life and the increased risk of astigmatism

among preschool children: Findings from Longhua Child Cohort Study. International

Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(7), 2216.

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17072216

Jaeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Jonides, J., & Perrig, W. J. (2008). Improving fluid intelligence

with training on working memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,

105(19), 6829–6833. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0801268105

Johnson, W., & Gottesman, I. I. (2006). Clarifying process versus structure in human

intelligence: Stop talking about fluid and crystallized. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,

29(2), 136–137. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x06329032

Kaviani, H., Mirbaha, H., Pournaseh, M., & Sagan, O. (2013). Can music lessons increase the

performance of Preschool Children in IQ tests? Cognitive Processing, 15(1), 77–84.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-013-0574-0

Kvist, A. V., & Gustafsson, J.-E. (2008). The relation between Fluid Intelligence and the general

factor as a function of cultural background: A test of Cattell's investment theory.

Intelligence, 36(5), 422–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2007.08.004

 10

Martzog, P., & Suggate, S. P. (2022). Screen Media are associated with Fine Motor Skill

Development in preschool children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 60, 363–373.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2022.03.010

McClelland, M. M., Acock, A. C., Piccinin, A., Rhea, S. A., & Stallings, M. C. (2013). Relations

between preschool attention span-persistence and age 25 educational outcomes. Early

Childhood Research Quarterly, 28(2), 314–324.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.07.008

Nusbaum, E. C., & Silvia, P. J. (2011). Are intelligence and creativity really so different?☆fluid

intelligence, executive processes, and strategy use in divergent thinking. Intelligence,

39(1), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2010.11.002

Peng, J., Mo, L., Huang, P., & Zhou, Y. (2017). The effects of working memory training on

improving fluid intelligence of children during early childhood. Cognitive Development,

43, 224–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2017.05.006

Peng, J., Mo, L., Huang, P., Zhou, Y., Wang, J., & Ang, C. (2014). Improvements in children's

fluid intelligence with working memory training. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 46(10), 1498.

https://doi.org/10.3724/sp.j.1041.2014.01498

Ritchie, S. J., Bates, T. C., & Plomin, R. (2014). Does learning to read improve intelligence? A

longitudinal multivariate analysis in identical twins from age 7 to 16. Child Development,

86(1), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12272

Rousseau, L. (2021). “Neuromyths” and multiple intelligences (MI) theory: A comment on

Gardner, 2020. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.720706

 11

Santrock, J. W. (2019). Children. McGraw-Hill Education.

Strenze, T. (2007). Intelligence and Socioeconomic Success: A meta-analytic review of

Longitudinal Research. Intelligence, 35(5), 401–426.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2006.09.004

Visser, B. A., Ashton, M. C., & Vernon, P. A. (2006). G and the measurement of multiple

intelligences: A response to Gardner. Intelligence, 34(5), 507–510.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2006.04.006

Wang, C. (2020). A review of the effects of abacus training on cognitive functions and neural

systems in humans. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 14.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2020.00913